Thursday, January 27, 2011

Obama's State of the Union Talks New Jobs While Policies Destroy Them, says FACES of Coal

/PRNewswire -- An internal report obtained by the Associated Press reveals that soon-to-be proposed rules affecting surface and underground coal mining nationwide will cost thousands of jobs across the country. The job and production losses are outlined in an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Reclamation and Enforcement document. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations, which the agency never implemented. The OSM has submitted the proposal to coal producing states for their feedback before it finalizes any new regulations. The proposal - part of a draft environmental impact statement - would affect coal mines from Appalachia to Alaska.

"This Administration says it's for job creation, yet its regulatory actions reflect just the opposite," said Bryan Brown, West Virginia Executive Director of FACES of Coal. "I, like most Americans, heard the President last night commit to reducing regulations that take people's jobs. In reality, these internal documents project how many jobs the OSM is going to destroy. This is outrageous. Coal states need their leaders in Washington, D.C. now more than ever to stand up for our jobs and communities by stopping this bureaucratic abuse."

The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of more than 70,000 people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating nearly half the electricity consumed in the United States today.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its list of investigative priorities for the new 112th Congress. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.

Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.

Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.

Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.

Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.

National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.

Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."

Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.

Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.

Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.

White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.

"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."

Monday, January 24, 2011

Protect Our Elections Asks DOJ to Prosecute Justice Thomas for Repeated False Statements Under Oath

/PRNewswire/ -- The following is being released by

Today, asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. ( Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. The forms include a specific warning that false statements will subject the signer to "civil and criminal sanctions."

Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation's IRS Form 990s. She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter which was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. (,0,2413407.story)

"We are asking that the Department of Justice bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas for his knowing and willful false statements under oath, not just once, but at least seven times," said attorney and campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese. "Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be role models for legal conduct, behavior and ethics, yet Justice Thomas appears to believe that he is above the law. But just as Bill Clinton was charged for making a false statement while serving as President, no one is above the law, especially not one who knows the law and sits in judgment of others who have committed similar violations. If Justice Thomas is allowed to merely amend his forms and pay a civil fine, it will make a mockery of financial disclosure law, undermine respect for the law, and create the appearance that those in powerful positions can violate the law with impunity."

Thursday, January 20, 2011

New Survey Finds Four in Five Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United

/PRNewswire-/ -- On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a new public opinion survey finds that seventy-nine percent of Americans sharply disapprove of the decision and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's ruling. The study, conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of Free Speech for People, confirmed previous polls that found wide-ranging and strong disapproval for the decision but is the most comprehensive to date to measure public support for enacting a constitutional amendment. In the 111th Congress, Members, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD4) introduced amendment bills seeking to overturn the Citizens United decision.

"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."

The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.

According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.

The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."

"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."

A full report of the survey findings can be found here.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void

/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:

"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."

The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:

"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."

By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.

William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.

"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.

"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.

"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Libertarian chair "sort of" commends Obama's Cuba decision

Mark Hinkle, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, sort of commends President Obama for his decision to just barely ease travel restrictions and restrictions on sending private financial assistance to the people suffering under the socialist government of Cuba.

Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.

"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.

"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.

"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.

"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.

"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."

The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Friday, January 14, 2011

After Arizona Shootings, Background Checks Examined: Congress Refuses To Fund All Changes Made After Virginia Tech

/PRNewswire/ -- The following was released today by Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had a history of drug arrests, drug abuse and mental health issues. He was nonetheless able to pass a federal background check and buy the Glock pistol and high-capacity magazines he used to kill six people and seriously injure 13 others. Why? Because the federal background check system has critical gaps and is chronically underfunded - even though Congress and President George W. Bush reformed the program after the Virginia Tech massacre.

The shootings in Arizona supply the latest example of the system's serious flaws. Under federal law, drug abusers and addicts are prohibited from buying guns. Loughner was arrested on drug charges in 2007 and rejected from enlistment from the U.S. Army in 2008 after admitting to habitual drug use. Less than a year later, he passed a background check and bought a shotgun. If the system had worked and records were available to demonstrate Loughner's drug offense and abuse, he would have failed that background check.

This is not the first time the failure to obtain and maintain relevant records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) allowed a dangerous person to slip through cracks in the law. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. Cho was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase any firearm. But the records of his mental health problem weren't in the NICS system because the general practice at the time was to only submit involuntary inpatient mental health orders, even though outpatient orders are also disqualifying under federal law.

In the wake of Virginia Tech, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system, and Congress responded. Less than two months after the shootings, the House unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. The Senate passed an amended bill, again unanimously, later that year. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2008.

The number of mental health NICS records has increased significantly under the new law, but there is much more to be done:

* There were 298,571 mental health records at the end of 2006.
* There were 1,107,758 mental health records at the end of 2010.
* The best available estimates indicate that there are more than 1,000,000 mental health records still missing, along with millions of other records on various types of prohibited purchasers.

Some states have made dramatic progress:

* According to the most recent state-specific data available – as of March 31, 2010 – three states have submitted more than 100,000 records:
o California: 256,106, an increase from 21 records at the end of 2006.
o New York: 154,962, an increase from 1 record at the end of 2006.
o Virginia: 139,185, an increase from 78,478 records at the end of 2006.
* Arizona has also made some progress:
o Arizona has submitted 5,036 records, up from zero at the end of 2006.

Still, many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:

Fiscal Year
Authorized Amount
Actual Appropriations
$187.5 million
$10 million (5.3%)
$375 million
$20 million (5.3%)
$375 million
$20 million* (5.3%)

*Continuing Resolution funded NICS Improvement Act program at FY10 level. FY11 appropriations legislation has not been enacted.

In part as a result of chronic underfunding, ten states still have no people flagged as mentally ill in NICS: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Eighteen more states and the District of Columbia still have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill in NICS: Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, South Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota.

Millions of records are still missing. As of December 31, 2011, only 2,092 people are listed as drug abusers or addicts in NICS.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

FRC Urges Health Advisory Panel to Protect Conscience Rights, Oppose Mandates for Abortifacients in Obamacare

/PRNewswire/ -- At a meeting today in the nation's capital of a federal advisory committee on the new health care law, Family Research Council (FRC) expressed its strong opposition to designating abortion as a means of pregnancy-prevention. The Institute of Medicine Committee on Preventive Services for Women is hearing comments about regulatory mandates for women's preventive services under Obamacare.

Additionally, FRC sent a letter today to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius encouraging HHS to not recommend the inclusion of abortion or contraceptive drugs as a mandated service that all health plans would be required to cover at no cost to patients. The letter states that to do so would violate the principles of conscience rights laws.

Jeanne Monahan , FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, made the following comments after addressing the second meeting for the Committee:

"The committee should not recommend the inclusion of abortion as a means of preventing pregnancy. FRC rejects any suggestion that 'abortion is healthcare' or that pregnancy is a disease. Including abortion, whether chemical or surgical, as a mandated, free-of-charge preventive care service would further expand abortion in the health care law and undermine the conscience rights of many in the health care profession.

"Additionally, several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' but can destroy a preborn baby before or after implantation. Any mandates including drugs such as ella would expand taxpayer funding for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained.

"Earlier today, we sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius urging HHS not to mandate that abortion or contraceptives be covered free of charge under the new health care law. If the IOM and HHS recommend these mandates, the conscience rights of thousands of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services. The IOM should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry," concluded Monahan.

Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA

/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.

In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here:

The cross-tab data is here:

"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.

Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here:

"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.

Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here:

Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.


Arizona Killings Should be Wakeup Call for Broadcasters

/Standard Newswire/ -- Following Saturday's tragedy in Tucson, Arizona where six people were killed, including a nine year-old girl, Sarah Palin and her Tea Party, along with some talk show hosts, are being blamed for the horrific incident. Will America view this as a wakeup call or just another story in the news cycle?

On Sunday morning, highly respected ABC commentator George Will is ready to forget it saying, "Whenever these things happen, and that is a search of the social environment to find some prompting that caused this, to make it more soothing and understandable. The truth is there are 308 million people in this country and a few of them are unhinged and that may be the final explanation."

That may be the final explanation if you make your living in television news and represent conservatives in America. Obviously, there are many people in this country who are capable of these types of violent acts, but not everyone is as eager as Will to brush it off and move on.

"The facts about the killer are coming out now and revealing him to be one of the unhinged people George Will referred to," said John Ruane, longtime journalist, media relations expert and author of "The Wizards of Spin." "The politicians have their own set of issues to sort out here, but the broadcasting community should take responsible steps to ensure they aren't playing a role in pushing these types of people over the edge. That's really the issue they have to face here."

In the introduction to "The Wizards of Spin," Ruane chronicles the change in the news media over the past 30 years, moving away from the "just-the-facts" reporting of the Walter Cronkite era to the sensationalistic commentary that dominates cable news over the past 10 years. There are so many choices for viewers and listeners now, and media outlets have to compete for ratings to survive, so it's easy to see why some talk show hosts have become more combative and sensationalistic.

"I have been on the book circuit talking about how some of the talk show hosts are inciting their listeners and viewers to the point where this country has become very angry and divided along social and political lines," Ruane said. "It's obvious some broadcasters purposely incite their listeners along those lines of division, growing the gap between a respectful debate and violent argument, and that can't be dismissed here. Something has to be done to demand responsibility on the part of all broadcasters. There are very smart professionals in this country who I believe can be assembled on an independent panel to address this issue."

Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

FRC: Increase in Abortion Rate Underscores Need to Get U.S. Taxpayers Out of Abortion Business, Enact Pro-Life Protections

/PRNewswire -- A new report released this morning by the Guttmacher Institute finds an abortion rate increase of 1 percent, to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2008.

Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council's Director for the Center of Human Dignity, made the following comments:

"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard earned dollars going to pay for abortions.

"However, this report indicates that much work remains to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and their unborn children.

"In its 2008-2009 annual report, the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, reported that it took home $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during that time period -- a $13.6 million increase from the prior year -- and performed an unprecedented 324,800 abortions in the same time frame. In other words, abortionists have an overabundance of funds. Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd. How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?

"Moreover, the last Congress approved abortion funding in the health care law and funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. Funding abortion will only increase, not decrease the abortion rate. This is why we urge the new Congress to approve newly introduced legislation by U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) called the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which would wipe the slate clean of government projects that force Americans to pay for abortions and abortion coverage.

"Several states have enacted legislation to opt out of abortion funding as part of health care reform. Women have a right to know that their unborn babies are children which is why we are working with state legislators to pass ultrasound bills such as the law recently enacted by Louisiana," concluded Monahan.

Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) Calls on Obama Administration to Identify Greatest Threat in History to Our Democracy

/PRNewswire/ -- Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor, Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, has called on the Obama administration to clearly identify what he terms "the greatest threat in history to our democracy." He further identifies clearly that threat to be the one "posed by Islamic extremism."

Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."

In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.

Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.

Carol Taber, president of , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."